Islamization of Europe and Policies to
Prevent It, Part 11

The issues of what a national identity is, and what contents a
specific national culture has, are of basic importance. They
directly regard what Europeans want to preserve and must defend
against attacks. In country after country conquered by islam, the
original culture is systematically destroyed, and an arabization
carried out. The domestic culture is seen more or less as worthless
by the immigrants or converts and is replaced by an arab desert
culture from the 7th century, alien to the country.

The annihilation of the Buddha statues in Afganistan is just one
dramatic example of what goes on in tens of thousands of locations
in various countries. Nearly everything that reminds people of the
time before being conquered by islam is looked upon as worthless
which should be destroyed. One recent example regards Pakistan,
where the Muslim Indian culture still strong after the breakup of
old India and its replacement with two states (later three), has
steadily retreated during the last decades and been replaced by the
invading arab culture.

These attacks on national identities and national cultures in
Europe by Muslim immigrants take many forms, and Muslims naturally
differ regarding their individual willingness and eagerness to carry
out such attacks. Before we treat the issues of identity and
culture, we shall define whom the most important Muslim enemies to
our cultures and important national values in Europe are. The
earlier parts of this series have underlined that the basic, main
enemy to Europe and the Western civilization is - the traditional
islamic doctrine. The people who believe in it, are then our
enemies. The question then is what Muslims in Europe believe
regarding the doctrine.

Discussions regarding who is a moderate Muslim (supposed then to
more or less sympathize with our values) and who is a radical Muslim
(enemy to our values) are often confused. The reason is probably
that the participants use the term “moderate” without defining it
properly. The term is often used to indicate conformity with Western
political concepts and values. That is not very useful because most
Muslims can then not be categorized as moderates but as radicals
(even if they are nonviolent). The fact is that such nonviolent
persons are willing to destroy important human rights in the name of
islam but are not willing to fight for it militarily - just now. If
we use Wafa Sultan's definition of a moderate Muslim (1), such a
person:

...fully supports separation of state and religion, rejects
implementation of Sharia law and believes that it has no binding
with Western codes of human-rights. A moderate Muslim is one who
respects and supports our western system of liberal democracy;
including equal rights of all religions, races and gender.

Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and
honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and
admit that these crimes are all committed with the implicit
approval of traditional Islamic theology.

This definition leads to the inevitable conclusion that just a
small part of the Muslims in Europe are moderates while the rest are
radicals. While that is a fact, it does not illuminate the
heterogeneity of the ummah in Europe and doesn't gives us any good
tools to analyse the situation in a specific country, or region, in
detail. Neither does it help us to formulate policies regarding the
large existing immigrant population. However, a simple demand for
true acceptance of UDHR by new immigrants can of course be a
cornerstone in a policy regarding immigration (see Part 10, Policy
Area 8: Rules for Visas, Immigration and Citizenship). For
our purpose here, however, we search for a more precise and
therefore more complex tool. It may therefore be helpful to
disregard o u r definition of “moderation” and instead use the
islamic one and define categories of Muslims mainly on that basis.
It gives us better indications regarding our task to formulate
policies regarding culture, integration, immigration and security
for the western countries.

The following categories (based on general conformity with the
moslem faith) seem relevant in Europe. Regarding pp. 1 and 5–10
below, their order is based on an increasing agreement with the
traditional interpretation of the islamic doctrine:

1. Muslim apostates

2. Atheists, agnostics and people with similar views of
religion.

3. Believers in polytheistic religions

4. Believers in the other monotheistic religions: the Jewish
faith, Christianity

5. Mainly in the West: Reform interpretations of the Muslim
faith (various groups)

6. In the West: Secular Muslims and Arab nationalists (secular)

7. In the West: “Cultural” Muslims

8. Globally: National or regional interpretations of the Muslim
doctrine. There are national variants of the different legal
schools, which then show characteristics special for the nation or
region. These characteristics have often softened various harsh
parts of the religion.

9. The traditional interpretation of the Muslim faith which is
also real islam. Believers belonging to this group are called
“moderate” Muslims here, and they belong to the accepted
traditional schools. The following subgroups among moderates seem
relevant:

Moderates (using nonviolent means to carry out jihad)

Moderates (using violent means to carry out jihad)

Moderates not willing to carry out any form of jihad is a
contradiction (see comment below)

10. Extremist interpretations of the Muslim faith

COMMENTS REGARDING VARIOUS CATEGORIES

Category 1: An apostate basically uses one of the belief systems
2-4. The islamic doctrine has always been totally clear that death
is the only penalty possible for apostates.

People within categories 2 - 4 can have very different views of
human rights and views of islam. Some atheists are socialists or
communists and are practically allies to the islamists, while other
atheists are libertarians with an extremely high regard of human
rights and are perhaps the strongest adversaries to islam. Many
Christian churches have so far shown very little sense of
self-preservation, concern for coming generations of Europeans, or
concern for their brothers in faith in Muslim countries who are
persecuted by Muslims. This is probably a consequence of the
recruitment of many persons as priests who politically are
socialists. Some church leaders ( e g in England) seem to welcome
Muslims in order to cause a situation where they become more
relevant for their own people. It means that they put their own
country in danger just in order to temporarily strengthen their own
church. They don't understand the position their church and
Christians generally in the country will be in with a large Muslim
minority, or Muslims as a political majority.

Category 5 (reform-minded Muslims) are people who look at
themselves as Muslims but want—mainly for
reasons of human rights—to change many
parts of the accepted doctrine. But traditional Muslims generally
regard them as apostates owing to their proposals to change the
doctrine.

Secular Muslims (cat. 6) don't believe in islam and don't follow
the five pillars of islam. However, owing to the threat against
apostates and their wish to continue to be part of the Muslim
society or maintain family ties, they don't publicly declare or show
their lack of interest in islam. Arab nationalists—the
second part of this category—are of
special interest. They are nominal Muslims but secular who don't
take the religion seriously. They may basically be fascists,
socialists etc. However, they understand—like
many secular Muslims—the basic function of
the Muslim faith as a tool to conquer other nations and their
riches. Even if they don't believe a word of what the mullahs or
islamists say, they know that if the Muslims will get into power in
a western country, they will give preferential treatment to the
Muslims and then specially the leading part of the Muslims—the
arabs. If Muslims later will get complete political power, they can
really apply discriminatory laws and take over the property of the
nonMuslims (as always happened earlier in history). So islam can
still be used as a tool for enrichment, like socialism was/is a tool
for many poor people to force better-off people to share their
wealth (even if these poor persons don't believe a word of the
socialistic ideology).

It means that many nonreligious Muslims will support the
traditional Muslims when those start to compete regarding political
power in a western society. The western notion that secular Muslims
automatically are our allies is wrong. While many secular Muslims
may be sympathetic to some western political institutions and
habits, the weight of the culture and the temptation of future
monetary gains will make many of them back radical political Muslim
movements anyway. Many also like the preferential position islam
gives men. Having a wife submissive and obedient like a slave
regarding most matters and therefore also having complete service
regarding home and sex, is something many Muslim males will not give
up. Nowadays only the gender apartheid of islam guarantees such
superiority and dominance of males over females. This is a very
basic reason for Muslim males to support islam. It is a critical
part of islam and Muslim culture. However, secular Muslim women
understand well their own mistreatment by men and this is more
important for them than the possibility to exploit nonMuslims in the
future (or even the culture). The integration of the women in this
category is probably successful in most countries.

Cat. 7 (cultural Muslims) differs from 6 because these Muslims
believe Allah exists and Muhammed is his prophet, but they worship
him in a personal way. They cherry-pick the parts of the religion
they choose to believe in and by doing so break the rule in the
doctrine forbidding Muslims to pick some parts which they obey and
disregard others. Cultural Muslims in the West have some respect for
western human rights and political institutions but it is unclear
how deep it is. It is very probable that most of them would support
hardcore islamists in case of a showdown.

Cat. 8 (national interpretations of the Muslim doctrine)
resembles cat. 7 to a certain degree but the believers are generally
much closer to the traditional, real form of islam. In some places
in India, South East Asia etc Muslims historically tried to combine
their traditional way of life and the Muslim religion, and as a
consequence they have disregarded certain parts of the doctrine e g
jihad. They are therefore now more tolerant and peaceful than other
Muslims. However, the wahhabist movement backed by the Saudi
government has now with the backing of oil-money for some decades
taken over many mosques etc. Orthodox islam has been strengthened in
numerous ways in many of these countries. The national, more
tolerant interpretations of islam are therefore retreating
continuously. Some may in practice become extinct in the future.
However, immigrants from these countries look at themselves as true
Muslims, and a majority will certainly not support nonMuslims in a
fight against fundamental islam.

WHO IS A MODERATE Muslim (CATEGORY 9)?

Jihad is sometimes called the 6th pillar of islam. Here we don't
talk about spiritual jihad (to work with oneself in order to become
a better person). Only 3 percent of the examples where jihad is
mentioned in the quran and the most basic texts of islam, refers to
this spiritual jihad. Ninety-seven (97) percent of the cases refer
to violent jihad which shows the importance Allah/Muhammed attached
to this type of jihad. The reason spiritual jihad has gotten so much
attention is pure taqiyya and the islamists' success in lying about
jihad to western politicians and the public in West.

For some reason, jihad was not formally included among the basic
religious demands on Muslims. However, it is still a fundamental and
definite obligation for every male Muslim to take part in jihad when
such a war has been proclaimed in a legal way. The obligation is so
definite that it has been characterized as the 6th pillar of islam.
But Muslims can have different points-of-view what to do when no
accepted caliphate exists. Then the legality of a proclamation of
violent jihad can be in doubt. Is it a continuous individual duty,
or a collective duty limited to a certain period of time ? Who can
start a jihad ? What justifications are legally necessary etc?

Using this 6th pillar of islam for defining subcategories of
Muslims illuminates an important fact regarding traditional Muslims.
All traditional Muslims want to live in a society governed by
Muslims and sharia law and will then treat

infidels according to sharia law. In our discussion regarding
Policy Area 6 (The Policy Of Assimilation or Integration) we pointed
out in the sect. “Which Religion and Culture?” the similarity
between moderate and terrorist

interpretations of the quran. We then used the word “extremist”
from a western point-of-view regarding those who carry out violent
jihad activities. Here, however, we define the categories from a
Muslim point-of-view. The main criterion is the willingness to use
violence at the current time. Because of the doctrine, persons who
carry out violent jihad activities can also be labelled moderates.
Muhammed talked about “the middle path” which is the correct path
and a path of religious moderation, and the people following it are
the moderates. Violent jihad and spreading islam by the sword is
therefore often definitely sunnah. People diverging from that path
are, from an islamic point-of-view, extremists or worse. People who
try to reform islam are apostates. Cultural Muslims (cat.7) who
probably have accepted at least some parts of the behavior and
viewpoints of their host countries may be extremists (if they are
not labelled apostates and infidels). Cherry-picking parts of the
islamic doctrine is definitely not allowed.

Owing to the military superiority of the western countries,
military jihad is of limited usefulness for the ummah for the time
being. Nonviolent jihad - not peaceful but using nonviolent means –
is therefore the great threat against the West. Muslims have a duty
to further and promote islam, and moderates in category 9A fulfills
this obligation through a large number of activities in Europe. One
part of nonviolent jihad is demographic jihad, i.e. creating so many
children that Muslims may become political majorities in many
western countries. Another one is legal jihad – using the legal
system to win advantages for the islamist cause. Making the western
society conform to sharia in many respects is another important part
of nonviolent jihad. Marrying western women and creating Muslim
children with them is another favourite method of nonviolent jihad
for younger men.

Cat. 9A-Muslims don't accept the necessity to take part in
violent jihad at the current time, and some may even object to
political violence for many reasons. But they have the same ultimate
goals as the 9B-Muslims and only differ regarding methods. Their
cooperation in peaceful times with the 9B-Muslims resembles the
classical “Good cop-Bad Cop” routine. And they would never object in
a way that supports the nonMuslims. Even when they are asked to take
a stand e g against terrorism, they are passive, or they formulate
their objections using such formulations that those are really not
an objection to the jihad activities. Western ignorance of islamic
terminology and doctrine makes such exercises easy for Muslims.

Such behaviour is highly important because it shows what will
happen in the future. The phrase : “If you are not with me, you are
against me” is highly relevant in this case. Muhammed used silence
as a sign of approval or acceptance regarding another matter (a
girl's acceptance to be married to a certain person). The same
principle of interpretation is valid here. And one finds the same
rule in many cultures. In e g Scandinavia there is a proverb saying:
“The person who remains silent, agrees”. The silence of cat.
9A-Muslims is therefore a clear a sign of—if
not always approval—anyway acceptance of
the jihad activities carried out by cat. 9B-Muslims. The more
numerous and stronger the Muslims are in a society, the stronger
will the support by the nonviolent moderates (cat. 9A) be for the
violent Muslims (cat. 9B). If the cat. 9B-Muslims in a specific
country start jihad there, they can expect to be supported by most
of the 9A-Muslims. The character and level of support depends on the
quality of the religious argumentation by the jihadists.

If there will be a caliphate in the future which is generally
accepted by Muslims all over the world, we can expect most cat.
9A-Muslims to take part in violent jihad against their host
countries when the caliph proclaims such a state of war. A majority
of the members of cat.7-8 will, of course, then also take part in
such a jihad. That is natural given the fundamental importance of
violent/physical jihad in the doctrine.

The cat. 9C is evidently not relevant. If such Muslims don't want
to do anything to promote traditional islam, they are not following
the quran or sunnah, and should not be classified as traditional
believers.

Cat. 10 regards those Muslims who try to follow and realize the
full traditional doctrine but do it in a way that violates the
middle path. The persons who maintain that a specific so-called
terrorist is a Muslim extremist, have the responsibility to show
exactly how that terrorist has broken Allah's/Muhammed's rules of
behaviour. If they try, they will probably often find that the
terrorist is a moderate Muslim (cat. 9B).

A GENERAL CONCLUSION

The categories above can be useful for formulating policies
towards various segments of the Muslim immigrant population. The
conclusions regarding the term “moderate Muslim” are highly
important for all policymaking.

There seems to be no movement towards successful integration
regarding the majority of members in any of the larger groups (cat.
7- 9) in any European country. Secular moslems (part of cat. 6)
naturally offer the best chances and then specially female members.
The lack of success makes it mandatory now to pursue much more
forceful policies regarding integration. Specially women, young
people and children belonging to all categories are then prime
targets for an active policy to substitute the culture of the host
country for those parts of the Muslim culture which violate human
rights. To be able to do that one must know which parts of the
culture and which values of the European country that ought to be
promoted constantly and aggressively.